Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
| Autor/in | Peyser, James A. |
|---|---|
| Titel | Hoop Hassles: Incentives, Not National Control |
| Quelle | In: Education Next, 6 (2006) 4, S.52-55 (4 Seiten)
PDF als Volltext |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz |
| ISSN | 1539-9664 |
| Schlagwörter | Stellungnahme; Federal Legislation; Test Results; State Standards; Grants; Educational Benefits; Educational Improvement; Public Education; National Standards; Federal Government; National Competency Tests; Standard Setting; Accountability; School Effectiveness; Academic Achievement; Test Items; Educational Assessment |
| Abstract | There can be little doubt that there is wide variation in the rigor and quality of state standards and assessments. Moreover, it is clear that the vast majority of states have set their academic achievement bar far lower than federal standards, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Since No Child Left Behind (NCLB) pegs its accountability mechanism to state test results, rather than NAEP, there is a natural incentive for states to maintain or even weaken their already-low standards. If this pattern of behavior persists, much of NCLB's promised educational benefit will be lost. One response to this disappointing reality has been a renewed call for nationalized standards and assessments. But establishing a single set of national standards and assessments would effectively make the federal government the owner and operator of America's public education system. In this article, the author proposes a more incremental approach, one that tries to create greater rigor within the current state-based systems, without ripping them up root and branch. For example, if a district makes Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) based on low state standards (relative to NAEP), it may lose some federal money or be ineligible for certain grant funds, even though it is not technically "in need of improvement" under NCLB. To support this new system, Department of Education (DOE) should fund the development of more-detailed curriculum frameworks (perhaps several different alternatives) and a national test-item bank for interim and annual assessments, all aligned to NAEP standards. States would be free to choose among these frameworks or stick with their own homegrown versions. This approach might lead to more consistent standards over time, but it would do so gradually through incentives, rather than quickly through compulsion. (Contains 1 figure.) (ERIC). |
| Anmerkungen | Hoover Institution. Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010. Tel: 800-935-2882; Fax: 650-723-8626; e-mail: educationnext@hoover.stanford.edu; Web site: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext |
| Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
| Update | 2017/4/10 |
Literaturbeschaffung und Bestandsnachweise in Bibliotheken prüfen
Permalink als QR-Code
Inhalt auf sozialen Plattformen teilen (nur vorhanden, wenn Javascript eingeschaltet ist)
Teile diese Seite:
